MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            16 December 1998 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12686

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a more favorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he believes his service warrants a more favorable discharge than he received.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted on 2 December 1975 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed his training as a recovery vehicle specialist and was transferred to Germany.

On 22 September 1976 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for possession of marijuana.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and extra duty and restriction for 14 days.

On 14 March 1977 NJP was again imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order from an NCO.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and extra duty for 14 days.

On 4 January 1978 NJP was imposed against the applicant for committing assault of two fellow soldiers.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and extra duty and restriction for 45 days.

On 12 April 1978 NJP was imposed against him for being drunk and disorderly.  His punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 10 days.

The applicant was transferred to Fort Knox, Kentucky on 3 May 1978 and on 17 August he went AWOL and remained absent until 23 August 1978.  On 23 August 1978 NJP was imposed against him for the AWOL offense.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty and restriction for 7 days. 

The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial on 22 December 1978 for being AWOL from 14 October to 30 October 1978 and from 3 November to 28 November 1978.  His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for 30 days (suspended for 6 months) and a forfeiture of pay.

The applicant again went AWOL on 23 January 1979 and remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities on 13 April 1980.  He was returned to military authorities and charges were preferred against him.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He also elected to submit a statement in his own behalf in which he asserted that he could no longer handle Army life and that he had to leave to get a better paying job because he had money problems.

The appropriate authority approved his request on 13 May 1980 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 20  June 1980, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 3 years, 1 month, and 15 days of total active service and had 519 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 18 August 1986 asserting essentially the same issues as he is asserting to this Board.  The ADRB denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge on 22 May 1987.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by  court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, the evidence submitted with his application and the evidence of record fail to support his contentions.  Likewise, the offenses for which he was charged are too serious and his record of service is too undistinguished to warrant relief. 

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__emw __  __lem  __  __cs____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12686	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1998/12/16	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	800620	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,  ch10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	awol	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.A71.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.